We Are All Catholics Today

From a townhall meeting in Ohio today. Go to 6:49 in the above video where Romney speaks about the HHS Mandate as a violation of religious freedom, and he says we are all Catholics today. If Mitt Romney keeps this up I will be voting for him as well as voting against Obama, and I didn’t think I would be saying that in this campaign.

Catholics are the reason that we have a government that is attacking our religion today. Catholics are the largest, single voting block for the Democrat Party. How could any Catholic give their name and votes to the political organization responsible for abortion remaining the law of the land? 52,000,000 American babies have been murdered because of this organization.

I agree with Stilbelieve. Catholics insisting on being diehard Democrats no matter what is why this Nation is in the position we are in. Having a correctly formed conscience means that as Catholics we do not vote into office anyone who is pro abortion. Just how many Catholics will pull that lever once again for Obama simply because they will not vote Republican?

Question: If one fails to vote in the upcoming presidential election or votes for someone other than Romney…..isn’t it effectively the as voting for Obama?</i.

Answer: Absolutely not. The non-voter is not responsible for the poor choices made by others. The winning candidate needs to provide a better reason to gain voter support than "the other guy is worse."

If I vote at all, it will be for a person who is competent and fit for the office, trustworthy, and (at the very least) not pledged to work against important Catholic teaching.

I shall vote for Mitt Romney. Period. I prefer Goode Clymer of the Constitution Party, but he is NOT a viable candidate and contrary to what Spambot wrote, every vote away from Romney divides the vote against Obama and makes his victory all the more likely. No matter what, Obama has to be defeated. The Republic cannot withstand another four years of this tyrannt in power.

Thank you, Paul, any vote cast elsewhere than to the Candidate who is supportive of our Catholic Church which is Enemy Number One of the High Priest of Satan, gives him a chance to win. And anyone who declines to vote at all, equally gives Obama a chance to win. My beloved Americans, this is not the time to sit on the fence. All you people of Good Will and ALL YOU CATHOLICS, JUMP INTO THE “TRENCHES” AND VOTE OBAMA OUT.

A vote against Obama is a Vote for Jesus Christ and His One,Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which Obama is persecuting.

If by inaction one fails to prevent an evil, one is as responsible for that evil as the one who perpetrates it.

The Catholic-Democrat link goes back many generations, to when the Democrats courted the immigrants from Latin America, Italy and Ireland who came to this country with nothing. The Church was familiar, and it was there to offer charitable succor and spiritual strength.

The Democrats were also there, even if unfamiliar, and offered something that the newly-arrived boatloads had not seen which was political participation. That it was a rigged machine meant nothing to the huddled masses; it was the opposite of the common station they’d endured under callous and abusive nobility for centuries, and the rich factory owners of the day were easily translated into American “nobility” for the Democrats’ political purposes.

When one is freshly off the boat and the only two people there to offer welcome are the priest with the Eucharist and the precinct committeeman with the patronage job, loyalties are quickly and deeply given. Handed down from father to son, such traditional loyalties are not easily violated, so turning one’s back on them was and is seen as familial treason – “Your grandfather, may he rest in peace, worked for years to improve our condition here, and now you do this?!?”

So, I agree with Stillbelieve as to the source of, but not the reason for, our current situation. I do not fault the Catholics of yesteryear. To them, I simply ascribe Christ’s admonition of the forgiveness of ignorance. Instead, I fault the party that I always fault when looking at how the government has grown, morphed and mutated into the leviathan it is now: The GOP.

One may convict the criminal for stealing, but the responsibility lies more with the inept guard who either was co-opted for personal reasons or was just too stupid to understand the threat. By ignoring those who were the embodiment of freedom, by playing the same political game of machinery and patronage the Democrats did (and still do) and by not recognizing the innate elitism their prime constituents brought, the 20th Century Republican Party sided with the minority and squandered the foundational advantage of having “the common man” on their side.

For this, we pay the price today. When the current crisis is over, we will have to find, or found, an alternative. We’ll bring the GOP to the dance, but I do not believe we have to two-step with it much beyond the opening number.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

I just heard some disturbing information on Catholic Bill Bennett’s radio program – Morning In America. He had a medical surgeon, Dr. Marty, a friend of the program, in studio explaining the effects Obamacare will have on people’s healthcare; and took questions from callers. People with disabilities, especially children and elderly are going to have their care restricted. Pregnant women with a baby that is going to be medically disabled will have to abort the baby or be denied health insurance to cover the cost of her pregnancy and delivery, and the child will be denied coverage as well. The elderly will not get life saving operations like heart pacemakers or by-pass surgery, nor life improving operations such as hip or knee replacements. The IRS will know everything about us since they will be in charge of the mandatory insurance we will be required to have. Knowing Chicago style politics as I do having been born and raised there in my single digit years, and not far from there in my double digit years until I moved to southern CA, your politics will also play a roll in whether you get medical care. Remember, the IRS will know who you donate money to. And believe me, if Obamacare kicks in because he’s re-elected, the 17,000 new IRS agents to be hired to oversee the insurance coverage will all be Democrats.

The “restrictions” will be required because they won’t have the money to pay for all the healthcare they will be responsible for. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until you see what it will be like if Obama wins a second term. They will continue to ratchet it down to justify what they want to do with healthcare. (Do you really think Dick Cheney would have ever gotten the cardiac care he received if Obama wins again and implements his Affordable Health Care Act? Do you think any body his age would ever get that kind of care again? The name, alone, signals what he intends to do. It’s real name is, the “Un-affordable Health Care Act”). Our Catholic religion will be in for a lot more trouble, too, from a second Obama term. So, my dear Catholic brothers and sisters, there is no escaping him if he gets a second term. Your lives and mine, and our children and grand-children’s lives will never be the same if Catholic voters vote to make our country the Untied States of Chicago.

Oh, yea, kiss the Supreme Court good-bye, and our First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Religion

If we make the decision to not vote because we don’t like either candidate, I believe we are making a very poor decision. Catholic teaching provides for voting of the lesser of two evils. I would hardly put Gov. Romeny in that category but I definitely would put Obama in it. If we don’t support Gov. Romney we are, by our omission, voting for evil to continue.

“So, I agree with Stillbelieve as to the source of, but not the reason for, our current situation. I do not fault the Catholics of yesteryear.”

Let me clarify. The Catholics I’m referring to are those who remained, or became, Catholic Democrats after Roe v. Wade. I was a JFK Catholic Democrat. My brother, who was vice-president of the Will County Young Democrats (next door to Cook County i.e., Chicago), introduced JFK to the crowd at an outdoor, town center rally during the 1960 Presidential election. I got to shake hands with Kennedy on a chance, one on one meeting afterwards; almost knocking over a motor cycle cop in the process.

Roe v Wade was a turning point for me. I was not a practicing Catholic in the last two years of college and early years of marriage when the ruling came down. My opposition to the ruling was on scientific grounds, not religious. I had a year of embryology, including lab work – I knew when life began; I experimented with it using chick embryos. When the Democrat Party came out in support of legalizing abortion, that was the last straw for me; I registered out of the party. I couldn’t register in the Republican Party; still too brainwashed with my Democrat Catholic upbringing with roots to South Bend and Notre Dame with my mother’s birth place and my father’s college, and an uncle who was a Holy Cross Order priest and later an Archbishop stationed in Rome. So, I registered an Independent. Soon after, I returned to the Church with my young family and my wife, who converted. I was recruited outside church one Sunday by a local pro-life group called Alliance For Life and got involved with electoral politics; working to elect pro-life candidates to replace the pro-abortion incumbents. It turned out all the campaigns I volunteered in were for Republicans because they were the only pro-life candidates running. I found out they were pretty decent people, nothing like what I was told they were like by the Democrat Party and the press.

So I know, first hand how difficult it is, emotionally, to go from Catholic Democrat to Catholic Republican. I couldn’t do it. But a couple years later I did register in the Republican Party to give them my name support when they made the unpopular decision as a party to add a Right to Life plank to their party platform. Republican Party people were able to win the battle within their party to support life where as Democrat Catholics have not been able to win support for life in the Democrat Party. In fact, the bishops with their changing the definition of “pro-life in the early ‘80s to include “social justice” issues secured the strangle hold the pro-aborts had on the Democrat Party. It allowed the Democrat Catholics, including clergy at all levels, to remain in or join the Democrat Party, enabling the laity to say, in a smug, snarky slandering way, “Their ‘pro-life’ doesn’t end at birth.” It is those Catholic Democrats that have given us the U.S. Senate Catholic Democrats the power to fight and keep potential pro-life nominees off the Supreme Court which changed the landscape for selecting and vetting those nominees. It is those Catholic Democrats who have given us Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who combined to give us the Community Redevelopment Act and Agency, that is responsible for the sub-prime loans that produced the financial and housing collapse we’ve been struggling with for four years, now. And it was Catholic Democrat support by 52 and 50 percent that gave us two terms of Bill Clinton who built walls between our intelligence and FBI agencies enabling the attack on 9-11 to be planned and carried out which we have also been having to deal with ever since. And it was 54% of Catholic Democrats, of which 49% were weekly Mass attendees, who gave us our first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President ever. And that president has given us the longest and weakest post recession recovery in U.S. history; an unemployment rate realistically near 15%; got a Democrat Congress to destroy our private healthcare system which then enabled him to attack our First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion.

That IS our current situation that Catholic Democrats, inside and outside government, have given us, all since Roe v Wade. Oh, yeah, can’t forget the 52,000,000 murdered American babies since Roe whose deaths are now jeopardizing the Social Security System because they are not alive to work and contribute FICA taxes which goes to support the Social Security retirees.

We’ve had and will always have the perfect in the Catholic faith and can use it to form our reason.

The good is what we vote for. Good isn’t a political party membership any more.
We voters have to look at:
our country,
its leaders,
their profligate legalization of deadly behaviors (temporal and eternal),
outrageous mismanagement of financial and natural resources,
slews of unkept promises, lies, insults, threats and divisive finger pointing,

then, decide on a vote for the man who loves his country and wants to serve its people.

Mitt Romney will have an unprecedented mess to clean up, as well as usual work to do.

The current public servant won’t even verify his ID or address the people of the United States as if they are equal citizenry.

This is such an important year for God and country. I think it’s time to practice our faith teachings.
I. Thou shall have no other gods before me.
II. Thou shall not take the Lord’s name in vain.
III. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.
IV. Honor thy father and mother that it may be well with thee.
V. Thou shall not kill.
VI. Thou shall not commit adultery.
VII. Thou shall not steal.
VIII. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
IX.

[ People on assistance will be ok – this is the voting block to convince and calm.
Massachusetts is a case in point. ]

Did I miss something, or did Romney suddenly become a great speaker over the past week? It’s like he was waiting this whole time for Obama’s “you didn’t earn it” comment, and now he’s hitting on all cylinders. He was never this good, not in 2008, not in this year’s primaries.

And while I’m no fan of Joseph Smith, I think a Mormon can kill on the topic of religious liberty, and throw all the snide comments of Obama supporters back into their faces.

Above unfinished when I touched some wrong key and it all went back to Kipling’s poem
– I apologize. The Ninth and Tenth are missing and the brackets aren’t part.
I’m shocked! that it got posted because I ‘m sure that tab key started the whole disorientation.

“IV. Honor thy father and mother that it may be well with thee.” The homosexual practicioner violates this commandment. The abortionist violates the first three commandments as only God creates the immortal soul of man. Fall over as they may, man cannot bring forth offspring without the will of God creating the human existence of the newly begotten. These are God’s children and nobody has the power to take them out of God’s hands. A vote for pro-life is a vote for TRUTH.

Stillbelieve – thanks. I know South Bend well, being only 3 hours south on US31.

Your explanation is tremendous; in my neighborhood there are scant Democrats other than my wife (another story), but not too much farther south of me they’re thick as thieves and for them I pray contantly, only because a soul eternally praising God is better than a soul in eternal perfidy. But that’s all I have for them.

I still blame the Republicans for being Ken Dolls on most issues, though. They have Pro-Life locked up . . . why can’t fiscal repsonsibility and the 9th & 10th Amendments be as vociferously defended?

Here are the facts. One of two men will become president in November.All the wishful thinking and standing on principles in the world will not change that. Which one would be the the better choice? Anyone who does not act in a way to try to ensure that the better of the two is elected is acting to hurt our nation.

Ugghh…. Just because he says this during his campaign means nothing. What about his record? Haven’t we learned that presidential candidates will say things, but not deliver? Haven’t we learned to look more at how what is said on the campaign trail matches up with a person’s record?

Romney was an adamant pro-choice candidate in MA. He also produced the system of healthcare that was the model for Obamacare. And he also had the same showdown with the Catholic Church in his state and attempted the same bullying techniques against religious freedom.

And now he is the sainted candidate simply because he is not Obama. Please. You are all controlled by the GOP establishment. Besides empty campaign speeches, there is nothing in Romney’s past to make us think he is any different than Obama. I don’t trust campaign conversions and neither should anyone else.

Rubbish. As faithful readers of this blog know, and I assume that leaves you out of that category, I have been unsparing in my dissection of Romney’s past history. However, to pretend that Romney is no different than Obama is lunacy. Do you seriously pretend that Romney would not immediately rescind the HHS Mandate if he becomes President? Compared to Obama, Romney is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan!

Paul D. offers a sampling of what passes for “theology” among the partisans: because other people elevated Romney to be the GOP candidate, you and I have a moral obligation to vote for him for president. In fact, we are evil and our souls are in mortal danger if we fail to go along with the crowd and vote for Romney, who in the partisan’s viee is “the only other viable alternative.” Yes, going along with the crowd is part of Catholic theology, thank you for asking.

Dear Donald, I agree that Romney will most likely undo the HHS mandate and some of the other guy’s more obscene initiatives, but we both know (and you’ve said this yourself) is that it’s only because it’s politically advantageous at this time for Romney to do so. Pat is right that there are many scenarios in which Romney fails to make good on his promises. For instance, I bet he still has many friends and advisors from his virulent pro-choice days who have not made conversion to the pro-life side, and they could influence his decision-making once in office. And as we saw with Chief Justice Roberts, sometimes the mainstream media agenda gets to people.

“but we both know (and you’ve said this yourself) is that it’s only because it’s politically advantageous at this time for Romney to do so.”

I make no assessment as to what is in Romney’s heart, my mirror into other men’s souls being on the fritz today. I do know that Romney is running as a foe of virtually all of Obama’s initiatives, and I think he has no reason not to do what he is promising to do. Romney as governor of Massachusetts, a state where the Republican party might as well be on the endangered species list, is different from a Romney as President of a nation where the Republican party is dramatically in the ascendant.

“For instance, I bet he still has many friends and advisors from his virulent pro-choice days who have not made conversion to the pro-life side, and they could influence his decision-making once in office. And as we saw with Chief Justice Roberts, sometimes the mainstream media agenda gets to people.”

Valid concerns, although I think the pressures upon Romney to govern in a conservative fashion will prove overwhelming. In any case none of this obviates the necessity for the good of the nation to make certain that this is Obama’s first and last term, and Romney is the only game in town to accomplish that.

With respect, Donald, (for I do respect this blog, and enjoy the commentary), if you are thinking of voting for Romney because he is saying nice things despite the fact that his record is completely contrary to what he is now saying, then there is a bit of control going on. Obama was the same way. With frustration and the gnashing of teeth we begged the sleeping center of this country to actually look at Obama’s record rather than just listen to his nice speeches, because they told two different stories and we knew that the nice things he was saying were just that… nice things that would never see the light of day once he was in office. And we were right. And now the tables are turned and we have an Obama on our ticket. Someone who has a horrible record (much more established than Obama’s ever was, btw) and yet somehow we make ourselves feel good by having campaign amnesia because he is magically saying all the things that send tingles up the legs of pro-life conservatives. It’s embarrassing.

The establishment will keep doing this to us (on both sides) until we take back the power of our votes. Our vote should mean something. It should be cast for someone you think would be an excellent president. You should not be cornered into casting it for someone you KNOW is a wolf in sheep’s clothing just because the other wolf has taken off his sheep’s clothing.

The establishment knew that conservatives would roll over and be the predictable voting block for this terrible candidate. That’s why they were fearless when they pulled the strings necessary to get him on the ticket. They knew they could count on us to forget our principles and simply vote for whoever had the R next to their name. How long will we continue to do that? How many Bushes, McCains, Romneys, etc will it take for us to realize that no one is listening to the conservatives at all. We are being laughed at and ignored, and yet with mathematical certainty being predicted to still come through as a powerful voting block to elect terrible presidents.

The challenge was issued for me to come up with a solution. That’s no small order. I don’t see a solution except to encourage people to make their vote actually mean something. We should not be so predictable for the establishment. We should not roll over so easily when a Romney comes our way who has a worse record than Obama ever did. Obama only PROMISED he would do some of the things that Romney actually DID as governor. If it was frustrating to watch centrists (who were clearly bamboozled by Obama’s fancy speeches) vote for him with campaign amnesia, then perhaps you can understand how some of us have the same frustration when we hear great conservative blogs begin to walk down the same path.

We have been convinced that every election now is the do or die election of our history. “If we don’t win this one, then the sky will fall and the communists will take control!” This is a strategy to get good people to support bad candidates. I’m not playing that game anymore. I may lose this election, (that can happen in a republic), but I hope to start sending a message that this conservative will not support a candidate simply because he has an R. The conservative voting block (which is powerful since we know we are catered to in the campaign rhetoric) should have had a bit more influence in the primary. Instead we are always ignored because we can be counted on to vote for whoever the R-guy is. I say, no more. I will vote for a good candidate. If Romney loses because people in my state vote for Goode or someone similar, then that will shake the establishment for the next election. Don’t send us bad candidates and expect us to forget principles. You want our vote? Don’t nominate people who have backgrounds like Romney’s.

“you are thinking of voting for Romney because he is saying nice things despite the fact that his record is completely contrary to what he is now saying, then there is a bit of control going on.”

I am voting for Romney because he is infinitely better than Obama and because I fully expect him to undo the actions of Obama. I truly cannot understand why that is not a pefectly accurate assessment of the current election.

“If we don’t win this one, then the sky will fall and the communists will take control!”

You do not regard the Obama administration as an unmitigated disaster for the country? If you do not, then I respectfully disagree. Elections have consequences, and a pox on both their houses strategy I find mindless when one candidate is manifestly worse for the nation than the other. Do I wish some more conservative Republican were the standard bearer? Of course. However, that phase of the election is past. Conservatives failed to defeat Romney due to fielding a multitude of second and third rate candidates who divided the vote and the campaign contributions and thereby allowed Romney to gain the nomination. However, that is done now, and my goal is to make certain that Obama does not have another term, and electing Romney is the only means to accomplish that.

How do you make this assessment? Because he is giving nice campaign speeches? Even a middle-schooler knows that the Student Government candidate promising free ice cream everyday at lunch needs to be scrutinized a bit more. And certainly we have good examples on both sides of the aisle in recent elections to be skeptical of campaign speeches that don’t match up with records. Romney could not have been clearer in his pro-choice days. He created the model for Obamacare. He is a foreign policy hawk. He has a record of promising the world to conservatives under his governing, but actually delivering it to the liberals. And he had a showdown with the Catholic Church in his own state almost identical to the current one, where he did exactly as Obama is doing now. (And on this last point, he isn’t even claiming a campaign conversion… he is just lying about whether it actually happened)

So, I ask you… on what do you conclude that Romney is infinitely better? And my followup question (assuming you will admit that this is a bit of hyperbole), is how close do they actually have to be for the conservative, in your mind, to be justified in voting for a third party candidate?

So, I ask you… on what do you conclude that Romney is infinitely better?:

1. He is pledged to repeal ObamaCare and to defund it from his first day in office.
2. He will repeal the HHS Mandate and stop Obama’ s war on the Church.
3. He will do away with trillion dollar stimulus plans that end up in the pockets of cronies.
4. He will make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
5. He will implement the Mexico City policy of a ban on funding any organization that supports abortion.
6. He will implement policies that aid the economy rather than the Obama policies which have stalled growth and produced an endless recession.
7. Romney, unlike Obama, will not be attempting to produce schism in the Catholic Church for political advantage.
8. In regard to energy he will halt Obama’s war on natural gas and oil production and his assinine investment in delusory green energy projects.
9. Romney’s choice of judges would be far preferable than Obama’s.
10. Unlike Obama, Romney is not in favor of gay marriage.

The list could go on at considerable length. Your contention that Romney is no better than Obama simply does not reflect reality.

Romneyeither gets it, or is playing the political card, but either way, at least he acknowledges that there is a problem. And out of the two men running for the WH, he is surely the “lesser evil” one. And the one that’s getting my vote.

For the sake of my generation, don’t sit this one out. You’ll be dead but we’ll be having to live in a twisted country because of your lack of cojones. You will face judgement for your inactions as well as actions. Ask yourself, who do you think bothers Jesus less? Obama or Romney? You know the answer so don’t let the option that bothers Jesus more prevail because of your inaction.

My Question: “So, I ask you… on what do you conclude that Romney is infinitely better?:”

Your Answer (in a nutshell): “Campaign speeches and nothing else.”

You are ignoring his entire record and the fact that he has taken both sides of many of these issues throughout his political career. Does anyone really know who the real Romney is? And what about long term atrocities? Sure, you may get some immediate payback for electing him, but what about the longterm consequences of electing someone who steers his ship to match up with wherever the political winds are blowing?

@ MIchelle…

That’s just it, Michelle. There are more than two candidates for president. Again, you have been sold a bridge here by falling for the scare tactics. Virgil Goode, for instance, is running and seems to be a great candidate who lines up with the Bishops so much better than these two clowns, and has a record to back it up.

You may respond with the “viability” argument. I don’t see that as an argument at all. All candidates are as viable as the willingness of the voters to vote for them. As long as pro-lifers can be counted on to huddle scared behind the GOP establishment candidate based on a false “viability” argument, then yes, no other party’s candidate will ever be viable. But, as soon as we start to decide to have our vote mean something again, this will accomplish two important things. Other candidates WILL become more viable, and the GOP will actually try harder to court our vote with more than throwing us a couple of meaningless one-liners in campaign speeches.

The Catholic principles on voting say nothing about “viability” because all candidates have a shot if the voters will get behind them. It’s a false argument proposed by bad candidates to win the votes of otherwise principled voters. There is nothing in Romney’s record (or his flip flopping speeches) that gives me confidence in anything. I think he has merely proven that he will say or do whatever is politically expedient. I don’t see how that is “infinitely better” than Obama. It is too conditional. Rather, I see someone like a Virgil Goode or a Ron Paul (should he run on a different party line) to be an excellent candidate. Long shot? Yep. But at least I am voting for someone who I am confident will stand for what is right in office. And imagine what would happen if all these Catholic blogs would not roll over so easily when the GOP slaps us around and actually decided NOT to make endorsements of bad candidates and put a little fear in the process? Wouldn’t it be great if we took our votes somewhere else in a more unified manner so as to actually have some influence in the process? It seems to me that THIS, more than winning any particular election, would be much better in the long run for this country.

Virgil Goode isn’t even on ballot in most states, of course he won’t win. It’s not even a statistical possibility. There is zero possibility.

One of the criteria for a just war is that it must have a reasonable chance for success. Similarly, when facing grave danger such as Obama you must choose the option to limit the evil which has a reasonable chance for success. The inability to grasp this and the inability to grasp the principle of double effect leads directly to the crass errors in judgment that have been posited here today.

Rubbish. There is not a chance in the world that Romney would not attempt to carry out each item I listed. You are willfully ignoring reality when you contend that Romney would not be a vast improvement over Obama. Politics is the art of comparisons, and compared to Obama Romney is clearly preferable from a conservative viewpoint.

“Rather, I see someone like a Virgil Goode or a Ron Paul (should he run on a different party line) to be an excellent candidate.”

Ron Paul is a lunatic and a buffoon, and has no chance of ever being president. Virgil Goode is a good man who has no chance of being president.

@ Paul D – Your use of Just War principles in a voting situation is a misuse of Catholic Ethics. This isn’t a war in any sense that you could appeal to Just War principles. And I would like to hear your double effect argument here. Although Double Effect Principles are certainly at work within a Just War Argument, they are not the same. Reasonable chance of success is not part of Double Effect.

The fact of the matter is that Romney has taken just about every position you can take on every issue over the course of his career, and it always happens to be the position needed to get the majority of votes. So, there is a strong case to be made that a vote for Romney is a vote for a drifting boat that will sail in the direction of the strongest wind. I guarantee you that there are stronger and more influential forces in Washington besides the pro-life conservative movement. He needs us now… he will not need us in January. The fact that this argument can even be reasonably made destroys the case that a Catholic is obliged to vote for him just because he is not Obama… especially with other candidates in the race. In fact, you mention that Goode is not on many ballots. Do you think he would be more successful if, instead of rolling over and being bullied around in yet another election, that conservative groups and pro-life blogs jumped ship (or at least threatened to) and began to actually help out and talk up people like Goode that he could be more successful? In other words, you cry about how there are only two viable choices, but I see NO ONE in the mainstream pro-life community actually doing anything about getting behind a good candidate and putting pressure on the establishment. NOTHING. In fact, when people like me try to propose such actions you ridicule us.

@ StilBelieve – Ad Hominem duly noted. I can’t elect anyone on my own. I only have one vote. I would need others to join me in not rolling over and playing the fool for the establishment.

@ Donald – You say it is rubbish, but you can only do so if you ignore the fact that Romney is a career flip flopper. He takes positions based on what voter base he needs to rally. This is admitted by EVERYONE, both liberal and conservative… except now. Now the conservatives are pretending they didn’t think that during the primary. There is simply no way to tell what his actual convictions are, and you are therefore relying on the hope that the conservative electorate will mean more to Romney after the election than whatever powerful lobbying influences exist in Washington. I’m not so hopeful. Even Obama caved on deeply held campaign promises. The problem with Romney is that we have no way of knowing which issues he TRULY cares to continue to fight post-election, and which ones are just empty promises, and that is because he has held and fought for all sides of each issue throughout his career. This idea that you can predict what he will do, and what he will have the political capital to do, or even the integrity to do, after the election is nothing but wishful thinking. It isn’t based on anything other than the campaign speeches of a known flip flopper.

And I don’t want to get into a Ron Paul debate with you, but I think your characteristic of him is simply irresponsible calumny, which is truly unfortunate.

And Goode could have a better chance if people like us would stand behind them and make some noise.

I am NOT saying that I don’t understand the arguments in favor of voting Romney. I do understand them, and empathize with the moral conflict. (ie. double effect, etc)

What I am frustrated with is that this courtesy is not returned to those Catholic voters who do not offer the same understanding to those who chose to not accept the conclusion that it is a moral obligation, or that a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama, or that Romney will undoubtedly be better, etc. All of these assertions are not based on Catholic teaching, or even a fair assessments of the facts.

I understand that you are voting in HOPES that Romney will deliver on his campaign promises. But, it is only hope and nothing more. And the hope is only driven on the faith that his campaign conversions are sincere. But, for those of us who do not share your faith, we therefore do not have your hope. And therefore we have to find a way to fulfill our obligation to participate in this election in a different way.

Pat you make good points.
We are in trouble here. It would be great if Romney or Obama would have a real st paul metanoia– but I think the odds are: we are in trouble either way.
Earlier on I was hoping that the R convention would make it somehow possible to have a different candidate, but the party people will not allow that.
Prayer is our recourse.
And I will vote against Obama, marking my ballot for Romney. What else can I do.

I understand… But, the biggest irony in this conversation has been the frustration leveled at Catholics who vote Democrat merely because they are Democrats. Think about that irony considering what is being asked by the Republican Catholics.

And I don’t want to get into a Ron Paul debate with you, but I think your characteristic of him is simply irresponsible calumny, which is truly unfortunate

Dr. Paul tends to vet reality according to his pet theories of political and social life, which renders him unaffected by empirical data. He is not serious and should not be in any kind of responsible position.

“I understand… But, the biggest irony in this conversation has been the frustration leveled at Catholics who vote Democrat merely because they are Democrats. Think about that irony considering what is being asked by the Republican Catholics.”

The reason for that, Pat, is that it is a SIN for a Catholic to be a Democrat according to Catholic teaching on the 5th Commandment in both Life in Christ Instructions in the Catholic Faith and Catechism for Adults published 1958 and 1995, respectively.

Read for yourself. “To deny any person her or his rights is a SIN (my emphasis) against justice as well as charity. This is particularly true in the case of joining an organization (such as the Nazi Party or Ku Klux Klan) which promotes racial, ethnic or religious hatred.” (pg. 267, pt # 11, Chpt 36, The Fifth Commandment, Life in Christ 1995)

Here’s what the earlier Life in Christ Instructions in the Catholic Faith had to say about the Fifth Commandment. “To deny him his rights is a SIN (my emphasis) against justice as well as charity. This is particularly true in the case of joining an organization which promotes segregation OR ANY OTHER DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS.” (my emphasis). (pgs. 251,252, pt #8, Section 39, The Fifth Commandment)

The Democrat Party is an organization that supports and fights to keep abortion legal in Congress through legislation and judicial nominations. It is part of their Party Platform. Abortion denies the human right to life. In both versions of the Life in Christ teachings, it is a sin to deny any person his or her rights. It is “PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE CASE OF JOINING AN ORGANIZATION” (ditto) that denies them their human rights.

Therefore, the mere joining the Democrat Party is a sin for ALL Catholics who do so. If the bishops want to make an exception for the Democrat Party they should do so, but they haven’t. Thus the teaching is in effect. Catholic Democrats are in a perpetual state of sin as long as they are in the Democrat Party, and I would add votes for anyone in the Democrat Party as long as that Party maintains its Party Platform in support of abortion.

How serious a sin? I would say the sin is mortal because without Catholic support in name and votes, the Democrat Party would not have the electoral power to keep abortion legal has they have been able to do since Roe v. Wade.

I wanted to be able to vote for Governor Romney, but he’s on record as saying he is seriously going to consider the military option on Iran and that he doesn’t need to involve Congress. That’s unconstitutional. He’s planning to break his oath of office even before he’s made it. If I vote for him I’m leading him into a grave sin. I don’t feel like I can in good conscience vote for either Presidential candidate. I wish I could write in a name.

What he says here is that he does not think military action against Iran requires a Congressional authorization. Whether that means he is planning to ‘break his oath of office’ is dependent on him sharing your interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding war powers.

“I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions.

All those actions must be on the table.”

It sounds to me that he is talking about emergency action if Iran is about to produce a nuclear weapon. The point is fairly academic since I believe Congressional authorization would be easily obtained in the event that Iran is about to build a bomb.

“because other people elevated Romney to be the GOP candidate, you and I have a moral obligation to vote for him for president.”

I dunno about that. A moral obligation NOT to vote for Obama does not necessarily equal a moral obligation TO vote for Romney. It means you have the following morally acceptable (I didn’t say ideal or wise, just morally acceptable) options: vote for Romney, vote third party/write in, or don’t vote at all for POTUS.

Multiple pastoral letters and statements by popes (JP II in Evangelium Vitae) and various orthodox bishops (e.g., “The Obligations of Catholics and the Rights of Unborn Children” by Abp. John J. Myers of Newark, written in 1990 when he was Bishop of Peoria) have said that voting for a “lesser evil” candidate or abstention are BOTH morally acceptable choices if no suitable pro-life candidate is on the ballot.

That said, I don’t see what is so bad about voting for a “lesser evil” candidate. It seems to me that if we truly believe in limited government and in original sin, we shouldn’t necessarily be looking for a candidate with grand ambitions to solve all our problems, even things as serious as abortion or the preservation of the traditional family. We should be looking for a candidate who knows his or her limits, doesn’t promise what he/she can’t possibly deliver, and is least likely to mess things up or make things worse than they already are. The charismatic “messiah” candidates with legions of adoring fans and grandiose plans and promises — whether they are of the left or of the right — are the ones most in danger of becoming dictators or God Kings. Remember, we’re voting for a president, not a Savior.

“Catholic Democrats are in a perpetual state of sin as long as they are in the Democrat Party, and I would add votes for anyone in the Democrat Party as long as that Party maintains its Party Platform in support of abortion.”

That may be true in general at the national and state level. However, I’m not so sure the “voting for a Democrat is a mortal sin” rule necessarily applies at the local level or in every individual case. In a local election for an office such as mayor or sheriff where abortion is not an issue, the GOP candidate or incumbent is manifestly corrupt or incompetent, and running as a Democrat is the only viable way to oppose that person (due to insuperable obstacles to getting on the ballot as an independent or third party candidate), then I would say voting for the Democrat would be justified.

“That said, I don’t see what is so bad about voting for a ‘lesser evil’ candidate.”

Liberal Catholyks are looking for any excuse to vote for Obama, having drunk the intoxicant of his purple koolaide.

But I do agree with the exception that “…where abortion is not an issue, the GOP candidate or incumbent is manifestly corrupt or incompetent, and running as a Democrat is the only viable way to oppose that person (due to insuperable obstacles to getting on the ballot as an independent or third party candidate), then I would say voting for the Democrat would be justified.”

Just to clarify, I’m not a “liberal Catholyk” looking for an excuse to vote for Obama, but simply trying to respond to people who insist that it is just as wrong to vote for Romney as for Obama and that they cannot “waste” their vote on a candidate with less than perfect adherence to their favored moral or political principles.

I personally believe that voting for anyone other than Romney, or not voting at all, if you DON’T want Obama to be reelected is unwise — especially if you live in a swing state whose electoral votes may be decisive — but it is not immoral or sinful. Likewise, in my opinion, voting for Romney on the grounds that he is a lesser evil than Obama in relation to abortion, religious freedom, and protection of the traditional family is fully morally justified; even if he turns out to be less than ideal in that regard or doesn’t live up to all his promises, he can hardly be worse than Obama.

“In a local election for an office such as mayor or sheriff where abortion is not an issue, the GOP candidate or incumbent is manifestly corrupt or incompetent, and running as a Democrat is the only viable way to oppose that person (due to insuperable obstacles to getting on the ballot as an independent or third party candidate), then I would say voting for the Democrat would be justified.”

“I still blame the Republicans for being Ken Dolls on most issues, though. They have Pro-Life locked up . . . why can’t fiscal repsonsibility and the 9th & 10th Amendments be as vociferously defended?”

I’m very disappointed in the Speaker of the House. I was very supportive of John Boehner in the beginning; looked forward to a practicing faithful Catholic taking over the reins from a practicing, unfaithful Catholic – deceitful, dishonest- Nancy Pelosi.
He has no fight in him. He’s a disgrace. And I have let him and my congressman know about it. God sure is punishing us. We need a fighter in there for us, and he has been a complete disappointment. I wonder what God has up his sleeves.

County elections (at least in Illinois) are NOT non-partisan, everyone still has to run as either an R or a D. Municipal elections (mayor, alderman) are officially non-partisan and it is true one would not have to run with a R or D label; however, the vast majority of candidates have a regular party affiliation which is common knowledge and they rely on support from the party organization to get elected.

So in a mayoral election, for example, the ballot may not SAY “Democrat” next to your chosen candidate’s name but you and every other voter who has been paying any attention at all to the issues will know that he/she is a Democrat. All I am arguing is that in this particular case (D challenger to a manifestly corrupt, unjust, or incompetent R incumbent/candidate for an office where abortion is not an issue) YOUR vote for the Democrat does not equal support for abortion and is not sinful. (Whether or not it is sinful for the candidate to affiliate with the Democratic Party is another story.)

“All I am arguing is that in this particular case (D challenger to a manifestly corrupt, unjust, or incompetent R incumbent/candidate for an office where abortion is not an issue) YOUR vote for the Democrat does not equal support for abortion and is not sinful.”

We are speaking of Catholics and a properly formed conscience, something bishops and clergy have a responsibility for helping to form in us sheep. We are also talking about an intrinsic evil that the Democrat Party is primarily responsible for its continuing to remain legal which has resulted in the murder of 52,000,000 human beings created by God, according to Catholic belief and teachings. Does the scenario you pose make a difference in the sinfulness for Catholics to vote for that D? What if that D wasn’t a D but was a KKK instead, or a Nazi coming to the rescue of that town? Well, Church teaching is, it’s a sin to deny a person any of their human rights, rights which come from God. In fact, such denials are sins against the 5th Commandment, and “it’s a sin particularly so when one joins an organization that denies people their human rights”(paraphrasing the exact quotes for brevity ). The Democrat Party has caused the direct deaths of more innocent human beings than has the KKK and the Nazi Party combined. Just as a good surgeon would not risk leaving one cancer cell remaining inside a patient’s body, a moral community and moral people would find another source to save them rather than to turn to someone who seemed as decent as a Barack Hussein Obama. Furthermore, since you recently added that at the lower level elections, party affiliation plays a role, at least in Illinois, then this “cancerous” party is not going to get behind a decent, human rights loving individual with their money and effort. The reason why party affiliation is made known in a state like Ill at the lower level elections is to “warn” the voters who they are suppose to vote for.

Catholics, of all people, have the responsibility to stop this intrinsic evil, the legal murdering of innocent human beings. It’s only continuing on because of the large numbers of Catholics remaining in and continuing to join the pro-abortion, Democrat Party, and that includes the clergy.

I am directly opposed to abortion or murder of the unborn. Anyone upholding this modern day intrinsic evil, I am so against. As a TRaditional Catholic, man’s laws are only subject to God’s Law. And one of them, is “Thou shalt not kill.” Abortion is murder.

@Maria. Would you please explain what you mean when you say you are a “Traditional Catholic”. This term comes up in various places and maybe it has different meanings for different people. I don’t mean to offend, but I’m always curious why people say this. We are simply Catholic if we are obedient to the teachings of the Church and obey the Magisterium.

If we can’t vote for a candidate because he is pro-choice, can we vote for a candidate that has a “false-god” in the eyes of the Church? Which is worse, idolatry or abortion? Command #1 is against idolatry, not murder. So technically you can’t vote for the Rominee either under those rules….

That has to be the stupidest argument that I have heard in many a moon. Romney could worship a Penguin “god” from Neptune for all I care, and I would still vote for him so long as he held the positions that he does as opposed to the ongoing complete and utter disaster that is the Obama administration.

Well, it was a question, but if it was a argument it’s really stupid. It’s stupid to tell me as a democratic catholic I can’t vote for Obama because he is pro choice, when Romney has always been pro choice, invented obama care, and had etch a sketched his way to this point. Yea, it’s pretty stupid for Catholics voting for Rominee because “he is now all of a sudden pro life”

But if you want to vote for romney because you disagree with Obama then that’s another issue I wasn’t addressing.

You can certainly give your vote in support of the most anti-Catholic and pro-abort President in our nation’s history, who has also been a complete disaster for the economy. People do self-destructive things all the time in this Fallen World.

In this day and age being Catholic and being a Democrat are mutually exclusive. There was a time not long ago when that wasn’t the case. But unfortunately today it’s just like being a Jew and a Nazi, and the analogy is appropriate given that the abortion which Democrats support has murdered more human beings than Hitler did in the ovens. BTW, the Democrats are making sodomy as marriage an integral part of their DNC platform.

Romney and Obama are pretty much the same. Just Romney likes to change his position, especially on abortion based on his audiences. Both are pro choice. If you believe that he is really pro life, then I’m not the only foolish one here.

No they are not. I am 55 years old and I have never seen the Bishops do anything before like the Fortnight For Freedom campaign leading up to the Fourth this year due to the HHS Mandate that Obama has imposed. From a faithful Catholic perspective Romney is far preferable.

President Obama is no friend of religious freedom and religious conscience. His history points to the fact he has absolutely no commitment to the unborn in so many ways going back to his days when he voted against providing medical attention to babies who had survived an abortion! How can any Catholic in good conscience vote for this man? I read a stat yesterday that said 80% of democrats are pro choice and as it has already been mentioned by someone else, the Democratic Party is going to make same sex so-called marriage part of their platform. If Catholics continue to vote Democratic they are cooperating with evil! It has to stop!

Romney refused to exempt Catholic hospitals, he specifically cut funding for kosher meals for Jewish senior citizens in Medicaid in Massachusetts. Did we forget about Massachussets? Tell me, again why I should vote for Romney? He is not the leasser of two evils on abortion and contraception. Because, OBAMACARE IS ROMNEYCARE!

And remember also the USCCB also called out the republican party’s cuts to social programs and how they do nothing to help the poor.

Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.

Look, you obviously don’t give a fig about the fact that Obama is the most anti-Catholic and pro-abort President in the nation’s history. Fine. Be honest with yourself about that however, and don’t waste my time and insult my intelligence by attempting to justify your vote.

Here is the actual facts from Commentary on the ridiculous kosher foods smear:

“In 2002, cuts in both federal and state subsidies to assisted living facilities, combined with the rising costs of maintaining the facilities, caused a couple of Massachusetts nursing homes to consider closing their kosher kitchens. It was an unfortunate decision, but there was never actually a concern that kosher residents would be forced to eat non-kosher food – the facilities were weighing several options, including busing in the food from other nursing homes or hiring catering services. The Jewish Advocate reported in January 2003:

[Nursing home owner Genesis ElderCare] decided in November to discontinue operating the Coolidge House’s kosher kitchen due to rising costs and decreased state and federal reimbursements. Management said although the kitchen would close, Coolidge House would continue to provide kosher meals either by serving pre-packaged food, contracting with a caterer to prepare and deliver meals, or bringing food over from the Heritage House, GEC’s nursing home at Cleveland Circle. Coolidge House officials say the kitchen will remain open at least through Passover, which starts in mid-April.

The issue was the nursing home had to maintain the kosher kitchen for everyone living there, even though reportedly just a small percentage of its residents actually kept kosher:

For administrators at the Coolidge House, it comes down to the math: Only 30 percent of the 200 residents are Jewish, they say, and only 8 percent now keep kosher. By preparing meat and dairy foods in the same kitchen, administrators say, they would save about $200,000, or 14 percent of annual dining costs.

“We understand the community’s sensitivities, but this is what we have to do to stay in business,” said Larry Lencz, executive director of Coolidge House. “The bottom line comes down to simple economics and changing demographics.”

Some Jewish community groups opposed the plans to bus in food, and instead requested additional state government funding in 2003 to help the kitchens operate. At the time, Massachusetts was struggling with a budget crisis, and Romney was trying to rein in costs by blocking additional spending. The kosher food bill that he vetoed would have provided an additional $600,000 in funding to nursing homes. Whether you believe he was right or wrong to veto it, this was clearly a position that made Romney appear insensitive to the elderly and Jewish communities.

In the end, the veto was overridden by the Massachusetts state legislature, and the facilities kept their kosher kitchens after all. But Romney’s decision was not, as Gingrich claims, a choice to “eliminate kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare.” First of all, it was a choice made by the nursing homes themselves, not the Massachusetts government. Second, it was never actually going to prevent kosher residents from accessing kosher food. And third, Romney’s decision wouldn’t have cut anything – he simply vetoed additional funds, keeping funding at the status quo during a budget crisis year. Which means Gingrich’s comments have little basis in reality.”

Romney is pledged to be pro-life and I have no doubt he will be, especially with a Republican congress. Obama is a total pro-abort and that simply does not bother you. Your attacks on Romney ring hollow because of who you support.

I can’t support a party that will get rid of programs that wil take care of those unaborted babies after they are born. We are pro life in all aspects of the human journey, whether they are wanted or not, young and old, healthy or sick

To me it’s no use to say we are pro life, yet when that mother asks for government aid for that baby we tell her “no hand outs!”

I’m with the bishops that this mandate, from romney care, is a violation to the institutions that 98% of its sheep disregard. And I am with the bishops that the republican ideas in budgeting do nothing to safe guard the poor. The Bishops are consistent in their gospel message.

Obama has not added any abortion legislation other than that no federal money will go to abortions.

Anti abortion legislation will not end abortion, infant the USCCB said a personhood bill is also not the answer. The answer is to educate ourselves and our kids with the faith, which we obviously are not doing.

Politicians say what they have to say. My vote is not based whether they are pro choice or not. It’s what they aim to do, or have done, to help the poor.

Obama isn’t killing babies, it’s our own catholic daughters that CHOOSE to end their babies life. 30%!!!!

“Catholic” Voter 1 wrote, “And remember also the USCCB also called out the republican party’s cuts to social programs and how they do nothing to help the poor.”

I have seen figures stating that in 2011 Republican Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income. Liberal progressive Democrat Barack Hussein Obama, however, gave 1% of his salary and “Catholic” Joe Biden gave $300.00 or 0.0013%.

Republicans are stingy and Democrats are generous. That’s a true statement. Republicans tend to be stingy with your tax money (not all, of course) and Democrats are generous with it (virtually all of them). But the flip side is also true: Republicans are generous with their own money and Democrats stingy. Again, there are exceptions, but not in the case of Romney being generous in charity contributions and Obama being stingy.

Next excuse to vote for the Obamanation of Desolation, “Catholic” Voter 1?

It is a fine example of a Romney flip flop which is why on this blog I have named him the Weathervane. However, what he did as Governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the Union, confronted by a legislature totally dominated by the Democrat party, will not be predictive of how he will act as President with a Republican congress. Of course none of your assaults on Romney come within light years of justifying your vote for Obama.

It is NOT the job of Caesar to take care of the sick, the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, etc. That is your job and mine, “Catholic” Voter 1, as members of the body of Christ. You are NO right to tax me to do what YOU ought to be doing with your own two hands. You have no right to redistribute wealth from those who earn to those who don’t just so that you can feel good about yourself. Barack Hussein Obama is a murderer of unborn babies, a sanctifier of the filth of homosexual sodomy, a thief of the public treasury, and as a self-proclaimed Christian, an apostate and a heretic. He must be stopped at all costs even if that means voting for imperfect, fallible Mitt Romney who made wrong decisions in the past, has learned from them and is committed to be pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-business. You just want approval to vote for him whom you worship – that godless man of sin who can’t do anything without a teleprompter.

Obama has not added any abortion legislation other than that no federal money will go to abortions.

“NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed President Obama Tuesday, calling him “a leader who stands with women and their families.”

“The difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney on choice is clear and stark,” group president Nancy Keenan said in a statement. “President Obama thinks women and doctors should make medical decisions; Romney thinks politicians should be in charge. President Obama wants to uphold a woman’s right to choose; Romney wants to outlaw abortion and even supports a ‘personhood’ ban that would outlaw common forms of contraception. President Obama made it possible for nearly every woman to get insurance coverage of contraception without a copay; Romney wants to take away contraception coverage and defund family-planning programs. We will make sure that voters understand the importance of re-electing President Obama.”

“We are ready to go to battle and work every day to keep a pro-choice leader in the White House,” Keenan said.

It’s not really a surprise given how quickly Obama moved to shore up support among women and the liberal-leaning women’s health groups — bucking many of his own White House advisers in backing a contraception rule that granted free contraception to women employed by religious organizations and accusing Republicans of playing politics on women’s health.”

Just admit it. You don’t give a damn about the fight against abortion, and you could care less about the freedom of the Church. I have no doubt that you are a voter; I suspect you ceased being a Catholic long ago.

Am I not called to serve the poor? Do we not make laws to protect ourselves and the community? To live better? To provide education? To provide aid to those that can’t?

Donald, as a Catholic and your brother in christ i am deeply offended you would accuse me of not “giving a damn.” Anti abortion legislation will not end abortions, but educating and prayer will.

Let’s calm down for a bit. We agree on abortion, but clearly you are a republican and I hold democratic views. We may not agree with EVERYTHING the parties say, a las in this two party system I’m just stating it’s unfair for a Christian/Catholic voter to vote entirely based on the candidates view on abortion.

We never know when one day one candidate will be for euthanasia and gay marriage, and the other for abortion and invitro fertilization.

@PWP:
But I do agree with the exception that “…where abortion is not an issue, the GOP candidate or incumbent is manifestly corrupt or incompetent, and running as a Democrat is the only viable way to oppose that person (due to insuperable obstacles to getting on the ballot as an independent or third party candidate), then I would say voting for the Democrat would be justified.”

@PWP,
ABC news: President Obama reported earning about $790,000 last year and paid $162,000 in total taxes. He and the first lady donated $172,000 to charity, or about 22 percent of their adjusted gross income, according to their tax returns. The majority of the first family’s donations went to the Fisher House Foundation which provides scholarships to veterans’ children.

I believe in nothing that ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, NPR, or PBS say or report. Nor do I watch their news broadcasts. Nor do I read their reports in newspapers or on the web. Nothing that the liberal intelligentsia has to say can be trusted. Maybe you’re right. Maybe not, I don’t care. You’re liberal.

On very rare occasion ( once per month) I watch Fox News. I don’t trust that either.

Obama is a godless reprobate, an evil man of depravity and sin and death and destruction. No compromise. Defeat Obama. Defeat the Democrats.

“My vote is not based whether they are pro choice or not. It’s what they aim to do, or have done, to help the poor.”

Is there any more “poor” than the human life in the womb, totally dependent upon the mother’s body for life, nourishment, protection, growth, and birth into LIBERTY?. You would not be here but that your mother chose life for you, and my mother chose life for me. Who is not here but the poor who have had their human souls disenfranchised from their human bodies. Separation of the soul from the body is called death. Pro choicers chose death for their “poor”

This afternoon I was informed that there is a meeting next week for a city soup kitchen. People representing various churches and organizations will discuss ways to restore the operating budget. The Federal Government gave $12,000 last year. This year $0.
What does that say to us about the current priorities. That’s not enough to pay for a dinnerplate at an Obama fundraiser – you see.

Speaking of the poor ( which also includes poor in Spirit), we must get to work and build up these kitchens and shelters somehow on our own. The answer doesn’t lie in blaming someone who actually wants to work for the good of all in his homeland.

W.I.Aiken: ” I still blame the Republicans for being Ken Dolls on most issues, though. They have Pro-Life locked up . . . why can’t fiscal repsonsibility and the 9th & 10th Amendments be as vociferously defended?

Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”. The Preamble to our Constitution says that it is written “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. “Our posterity” are all generations to come, and “WE, the people” have a right to our constitutional posterity according to the Ninth Amendment.

Affordable Health Care fails to provide Catholic doctors to Catholic patients in Catholic hospitals and especially those Catholic hospitals with a chapel and a chaplain for the free exercise of religion and conscience, a necessity to the healing of spirit, mind and body, Affordable Healthcare fails to provide a necessary condition to it being a reasonable response to illness and healthcare for the healing of the Catholic patient’s body, mind and spirit. Why should Catholic tax dollars fund an “Affordable Healthcare” plan that ignores their medical needs? So, let us just say, instead of a Catholic psychiarist, the hospital sends in a Muslim, who has not the faintest idea of what the Catholic patient needs, like sending a baker to do the plumbing and you and I have to pay for this nonsense?

Crime cannot be legalized because it is perjury, a lie, in a court of law, and the crime remains a crime because it is a crime. The court may not punish the innocent person in the womb: 1 because he did not put himself there, Get the Father. 2 That human being, begotten, is innocent and may not be put to death for the crimes and negligence of his parents. 3 The parents cannot own another person and 4 who becomes a ward of the court because of their intent to destroy him. Abortion, legalized, makes every citizen a party to the crime and the lie. Every person becomes an accessory and an accomplice to abortion either through intent or consent or tax funding or citizenship in a country that has legalized a crime.
To indict abortion as the crime of murdering an unborn person, may not prevent the crime, but it will alleviate the communal guilt of belonging to a nation of abortionists, and end the forced funding of the crime and lie, through taxes.

CatholicVoter1, I have no problem understanding how Jay Anderson, Donald, or other conservatives might be dissatisfied with Romney from a Catholic perspective. But it defies logic to assume that you are straining at gnats in what exemptions, if any, Romney offered to Catholics in MA, while swallowing Obama’s and the Democrats’ rhetorical camel with no discernible irony.

Moreover, given your citation of Gingrich’s accusations and numerous other examples of bullet-point-speak, I have the strong sense you are drawing from some script that some organization fed you. Could you please elucidate what brings you here? And while I don’t mean to speak for others, if you would be so kind as to spare us any claims that your sole operating manual is the gospel or the catechism, I suspect we would all appreciate it.

I recall during the last election that there many similarly stilted posts with similarly weird names (yes, CatholicVoter1 is a little too on-the-nose, wouldn’t you admit?) and it wasn’t that I questioned the sincerity of their posts (after all, hacks have beliefs, too) or that I thought that they were anything more conspiratorial than one of those pseudo-Catholic front organizations Democrats have set up over the last few years, or some background research towards that end, but I just wish they’d have been a little more upfront about where they were really coming from.

Im 27 year old, I became catholic at 20 from an evangelical background

My views are that as a nation it is in our best interests to educate our people because the smarter we are, the more innovative we become. We are t even top 20 in math in the world.

I believe the churches teaching on abortion and I also believe that the government should provide basic needs to help get people back on their feet even if people abuse the system.

I became catholic because of catholic answers dot com. I received their voter guide.

No candidate is perfect and no political party is perfect. Our constitution states we cannot make laws to favor a religion. That being said, many Americans aren’t catholic, some aren’t Christian. Some don’t believe a zygote is a human.

We are faced every election on these hot button issues, and both candidates hold mixed views on a lot of things that some coincide with church teach, others don’t.

In this case I don’t see Romney as a diabolical sinful etc monster like others view Obama. I’m sure they are very nice pleasant people. But they say and do things that are against church teaching. So why even vote?

I believe we need social programs while still being fiscally conservative and to find ways to pay for the 10years of war we had and are still having. And hopefully no more.

I posted because voting on two parties that do things that are against the church is pretty much damned if you do damned if you don’t.

I do hope the bishops and the president come to a better compromise that respects the churchs right to practice their faith. I don’t trust Romney because everything that he has said in the election he has flipped on more than any person running for president, that his own party called him out on.

Not saying the president hasn’t either, but from all the candidates, my opinion, Romney is the worst as his position seems to be always changing.

Caleb, becoming a Catholic is a lifelong journey closer to the Lord, our God hopefully graced with depth and richness in growth. Wondering why to vote, due to what you hear from others on both (I hope) candidates, could be a way for you to deepen your understanding of Catholicism if you will pursue quiet study of the teaching in the Gospels and the Catechism to use for a gauge. Be careful of wasting time listening to the ones who hate God. You’ll become lost.
Conversion happened to you due to a website. Conversion happened to Mitt Romney and others.

PM, yes. It’s a journey that i know will not be easy in the defending the faith. Catholic Answers led me to Church Fathers and reading them gave me a fuller understanding of what it means to be a christian.

I agree with most of the social justice from the democratic party, but don’t hold thee views on abortion.

I agree that we have to live within our means, but my catholic conviction tells me we have to provide for the poor and the unwanted.

I just don’t understand how some can value life within the womb, but not value it thereafter.

Both parties are too extreme at this day an age with our advance communication.

Romney nor Obama will save the nation if we don’t elect people in congress that will look out for the unwanted. But that seems almost impossible now.

Advance communications has led to a more connected world. But also miss information. Many in the republican party still believe he is a Muslim, and is foreign, and was not born in Hawaii based on radical info they find on the net, as an example.

And in the other quote I was referring to, not all, some ultra conservatives that believe that it’s not the job of government to care for its citizens. I feel like if is the job of government to at least provide basic things to those that need it the most.

The caricature of Obama as ” a godless reprobate, an evil man of depravity and sin and death and destruction.” is sillier.

“I just don’t understand how some can value life within the womb, but not value it thereafter.” The people who value life in the womb, value it thereafter. Those people who do not value life in the womb, do not value it thereafter. iT IS A FACT. Please do not confuse both as one and the same as they are as good is to evil.

“The caricature of Obama as ” a godless reprobate, an evil man of depravity and sin and death and destruction.” is sillier.” Obama earned those modifiers by voting to leave citizens born after a failed abortion to die of neglect, reversing the Mexico City policy which denied taxpayers’ money to abort foreign children, the very first day in his office, earning Obama the title of INFANT BUTCHER, by redefining a fake husband and a fake wife as a married couple, by redefining the human being as having no immortal soul with a conscience, by writing an Affordable Healthcare Bill that has no intention of caring for Catholic voters, by ignoring our founding principles, especially the ones found in the Declaration of Independence that state that “WE hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE pursuit of HAPPINESS”, and the Ninth Amendment that states that there are more rights not enumerated in the Constitution, by arrogantly usurping power over the Department of Justice and the Legislative power of Congress by writing 923 Executive Orders authorizing the Justice Department to execute his orders (since when does the Chief Executive run the Justice Department by Executive Order? Rural Councils to assimilate all private property in America for his own use, to relocate groups of people and form work brigades of unwilling people, by taking control of our healthcare, our food supply and our taxes. “silliness”? I am not laughing.

Look, I have a hard time conversing with someone who just throws out random statements that have almost no grounding in reality or fact. You seem like a genuinely good person who is honestly trying to find answers, but you have got to move past soundbites.

@Don, thanks for the article. These are examples of people not valuing the life of another and it’s horrible and sick.

And @ Paul, it’s very difficult to discuss politics on all issues on a forum like this as text can be interpreted with an in intended tone.

But we can all agree that abortion is morally wrong, not just on a catholic front, but on a science front

We may disagree on ways to stop it, but ultimately the goal is the same; to have them no more.

We need to reach out to our catholic daughters and sons and let them know the dangerous of sex and how we can be enslaved by it, and the virtue of sex in chastity and how they can be freed in the the giving on one self in the sacrament of marriage. Then the 98% of Catholics that have used birth control in the past will cease to use it, and the 30% abortion rate in catholic girls will go to 0%.

@Mary, I hear you. Pray for me that I may continue to serve my local parish.

Caleb – about the ‘ tone ‘ – and ringing with a variety of them.
(Esp. the sarcasm about reaching out to dubious percentages and the offensive compiling of R attitude.) Check out integrity and virtue in your reading while you are continuing to serve.

Fair enough, Caleb — that’s good enough for me. Thank you for the clarification.That being the case, it still seems that you’re taking your views from very selective sources — I mean, for example, any source that would make hay (unfairly, as it turns out) about some alleged failure to subsidize religious dietary restrictions, especially given what Obama has done with respect to the NHS mandate. That has the smell of some serious agitprop.

Again, I don’t mean to imply you’re not sincere in what you say and it doesn’t mean that my own understanding of whom to (not) vote for is deeply flawed, but I have to think there’s some missing piece to the puzzle. I’ll leave it at that, except that to say that four years ago, one could find any number of Catholics willing to flack for Obama, without so much as 30 pieces of silver to show for it. I think they will soon be the rounds again, with perhaps a few new faces this time (though maybe the left-wing nuns will choose to lay low for a while). In any case, even though I suspect they’ll use a set of talking points similar to those you drew on, I think they will find the sell to be significantly harder.

Of course that is an opinion of two bishops from the USCCB. There may be others who agree with them also that you can link to.

The hard thing about Catholic Social teaching is that it recognizes a variety of social needs. One is to be in union with others with particular (though not exclusive) concern for the poor (solidarity.) Another is to not allow govt. to overtake the role of other groups (subsidiarity.) There is also the duty to respect the rights of conscience, of families, or private property and personal responsibility and initiative. There is also the duty not to foster dependence. Reducing Catholic Social teaching to a “social justice” meme that solely promotes govt. programs for the poor, without any regard to whether they actually help the poor or hurt other aspects of society, is wrong.

One aspect of this social teaching is that Catholics in good conscience may disagree about public policy in the pursuit of the common good. Here’s a good link to Cardinal Dolan’s response to Rep. Ryan in regards to Ryan’s budget plan. You will see that, for those of good will, Ryan in fact is following Catholic Social teaching and his budget very well passes the moral test.

Pat and Catholic Voter 1 seem to be de-railers. All the red herrings and straw men and what-abouts and yeah-buts are nothing by planned confusion brought to this discussion by (you know who)
I agree with Mike Malone’s clear statement at the top of this list- and so I am voting for Romney.

The bottom line: when teaching principles of faith and morals, the Pope and bishops in union with him are infallible. When applying those principles to everyday circumstances, they are subject to error as the rest of us are.

I concur with Phillip on that one. Luke Coppen recommended as one of his Catholic “must reads” today, so it should get wide exposure. Particularly interesting to me was this item relevant to the recent post on Fr. Wilson Miscamble’s remarks:

“The Holy See intervened in the composition of the peace pastoral [“The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response (1983)] because the US bishops’ first draft had termed nuclear deterrence objectively sinful but nonetheless tolerable, thus appearing to embrace the moral error of approving the doing of evil to bring about good (cf. Romans 3:8). The corrected final version would adopt Pope John Paul II’s teaching that deterrence remains morally acceptable. Msgr. George Kelly recounts the long gestation of the pastoral letters on peace and the economy in his 1990 book, Keeping the Church Catholic with John Paul II.”

One very important clarification: The Affordable Health Care Act is written so that Sebelius has complete power to rewrite any portion or clause. If President Obama were to give the whole Catholic population an accommodation, for conscience, for freedom of religion, for any value system, the accommodation can be withdrawn or redrawn the day after election. That is the way the contract for the Affordable Healthcare Act was written. No informed consent from any citizen. No ballot, no will of the people. Only dictatorship from Obama.